Anthropology-Newshttp://www.anthropology-news.org
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:00:48 +0000en-UShourly1The Tribe that Eats its Ancestorshttp://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/16/the-tribe-that-eats-its-ancestors/
http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/16/the-tribe-that-eats-its-ancestors/#respondFri, 16 Feb 2018 14:00:48 +0000http://www.anthropology-news.org/?p=79276How long can any of us expect our work to survive? Why do so few of my students recognize the names of my own illustrious teachers, or most of the people who were considered essential reading when I was a graduate student?

I find it very difficult to write about the history of anthropology without sounding like an old grump, full of nostalgia and complaints about ignorant youth. Nothing could be further from my intent, but it is worth asking what kind of past we are constructing as a discipline, and how we want to keep reading that past into the present. How do you select the most important works from thousands of books and articles, over a period when anthropology has changed in so many ways? How can we possibly build a canon of key readings which includes voices that were marginalized in the era when the discipline was a white boys’ club? And is it possible to include voices from outside the United States and the United Kingdom, not to mention key work that bridges between subfields?

[pquote]We have effectively killed and buried our intellectual ancestors, our elder brothers and sisters.[/pquote]I struggled with these questions for almost 25 years of teaching graduate and undergraduate courses in “contemporary” cultural anthropological theory. Now I fear that anthropology has grown in so many new directions that a good core course has become an impossible task. In 2013, my students in the graduate theory class gathered syllabi and reading lists from similar theory courses at other US universities. They found very little overlap beyond Clifford Geertz and George Marcus & Michael Fisher; each person teaching a theory course found a different group of essential readings. What does this tell us about the recent history of anthropology and its direction?

My sense is that we are so busy teaching, doing research, writing and publishing, many of us no longer have much time to read. When we write and teach, we face constant pressure to show fluency in current research in our geographic and topical areas, use the latest language, and cite the leading theorists of the day. With so much to follow in the present, it is easy to disregard the past. How can we expect a writer to include relevant work by long dead ancestors, whose work may not be indexed or network-accessible, whose language and categories no longer match our own?

The need to be current on an ever-expanding literature, while trying to follow related developments in other disciplines has created a discontinuity, a chasm between present and past anthropologies. I suspect that for most of us, being “current” in theory means keeping track of a slowly shrinking horizon of about 10–15 years in depth. Over time, a few important things stick with you, while most of the rest becomes intellectual compost. I also notice that even the things we remember get somehow dryer, because the context that once made a work exciting is gone. This process of forgetting led me to go back to look at the program of my very first AAA meeting in New York in 1973. I remember seeing Margaret Mead in her exotic finery walking through the hallways while acolytes and disciples, dressed in colorful and exotic costumes, jostled each other to touch her magical walking staff. How many of the great names at those meetings are still recognized? Few of the prominent names on that program are even listed in the Social Science Citation Index.

So much of our ancestors’ work and passion, lifetimes of effort and wisdom, has disappeared, to the point where most of the people I studied in graduate school in the 1970s are now obscure historical figures. Their writings are buried under the weight of later work, only kept alive by a small community of their students or grandstudents. Who has time any more for conducting an excavation, to keep these names alive? A few luminaries, Boas or Malinowski or Bateson, become the representatives of entire eras and schools of theory.

I feel like we have effectively killed and buried our intellectual ancestors, our elder brothers and sisters, and it leaves senior people like me feeling like our own work from 20 or 30 years ago has already fallen into academic oblivion. We graduate our students into a furious intellectual competition, driving them to claim a topic or specialty, while keeping up with the latest trends of current theory. We give them no rewards for staying grounded in the history of anthropology or keeping in touch with the full breadth of the discipline. Instead they have to address and cite the prominent names of the day, or their papers will be rejected and their careers will suffer. How does this affect the discipline as a whole?[pquote]Over time, a few important things stick with you, while most of the rest becomes intellectual compost.[/pquote]

We do have some ways of preserving the past. We have more encyclopedias than anybody could possibly read in a lifetime. Our associations and organizations single people out with awards and honors, and the work of prominent scholars is celebrated in obituaries, festschrifts, retrospectives, and even biographies. Annual review editors and authors try to distill the best of the field to its essence, and find direction and progress in a dense jungle of research. The discipline has a wealth of accumulated knowledge and activism among the Association of Senior Anthropologists. It is truly wonderful that we have colleagues who have built a place for the archives and papers of retired anthropologists. Others have sought out and written on past anthropologists whose work was unjustly ignored by their contemporaries. But in the cold harsh light of my computer screen, I hear the ghostly voices of anthropologists past, and worry that we have forgotten and lost too much.

]]>http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/16/the-tribe-that-eats-its-ancestors/feed/0Living the Council on Anthropology and Education Missionhttp://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/16/living-the-council-on-anthropology-and-education-mission/
http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/16/living-the-council-on-anthropology-and-education-mission/#respondFri, 16 Feb 2018 14:00:37 +0000http://www.anthropology-news.org/?p=79266Kevin Foster, Pauline Lipman, Thea Abu El-Haj, Ted Hamann, and Frederick Ericson at one of the many CAE gatherings at the 2017 AAA Meeting. Albert Prieto

What does it mean to be an educational anthropologist in these times? That was one of the questions posed by the Council on Anthropology and Education’s (CAE) Mission Committee at its Town Hall meeting at the 2017 American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. The Town Hall was one of many venues at the Meeting where educational anthropologists had the opportunity to come together to reflect on the CAE mission, our work as educational anthropologists, and some of the challenges we face—particularly in today’s political climate. These special CAE events also opened up spaces for dialogue regarding how we can use our unique skills to advance racial and social justice in what Norma González, in her acceptance speech for the George and Louise Spindler Award, rightly calls a “fragile moment.”

One of the many highlights of the CAE Program at the 2017 AAA Annual Meeting was Marta Baltodano’s Presidential Address. In it, she reflected on the history of the CAE as well as the impetus of its mission statement. She recounted talks of former CAE presidents and the accomplishments of many CAE members. In focusing on the CAE mission, and in reference to last year’s CAE Presidential Address, she stated that we are anthropologists, educationists, and activists and that “We cannot separate any of these components from our identity as CAE members.” We are engaged scholars who, in times like these “find comfort in our advocacy identity” and “warmth and camaraderie [from] our fellow colleagues embedded in our undisputed quest for a more just world.” Moreover, Marta Baltodano reminded us to be mindful of our commitment to each other. In that regard she mentioned the numerous mentoring events that were taking place at the 2017 AAA Meeting, including the Presidential Fellows reception where this year’s CAE Presidential Fellows met as a group with their mentors. We are one of the strongest sections in AAA in regard to mentoring, collaboration, and community engagement.

[pquote] We are engaged scholars who, in times like these “find comfort in our advocacy identity” and “warmth and camaraderie [from] our fellow colleagues embedded in our undisputed quest for a more just world.” [/pquote]For the second year in a row, the CAE received a AAA community grant to host an event in the community in which the Meeting is taking place. Under the leadership of CAE President Kevin Foster, this year’s community event brought together educators, scholars, community activists, and policy advocates to discuss various education issues impacting communities across the country. The event, which took place at the National Geographic Museum, was well attended and participants were given an opportunity to delve deeper into many of the topics discussed at the Annual Meeting.

The 2017 Annual Meeting was also a time for celebration. Past president Norma González received the 2017 George and Louise Spindler Award, given in recognition of her outstanding and ongoing contributions to the field of educational anthropology. In her acceptance speech, she spoke about the CAE mission statement, which she believes “was crafted for such a time as this.” She also spoke about the role she sees educational anthropologists being able to play in not only “uncover[ing] oppressions, but … heal[ing] them,” as well. She reminded us that at times like these, listening and “person to person dialogue in a true ethnographic encounter” are powerful parts of the healing process. In the conclusion to her talk, Norma González made moving reference to the counsel of two of our elders who have passed on, which she believes can help sustain us in this moment. One elder is Rosalie Little Thunder, a Sicangu Lakota of the Little Thunder Tiospaye; the other is Richard Ruiz, whose scholarship continues to inform new generations of scholars. Without a doubt, Norma Gonzalez’s own scholarship inspires and will continue to inspire anthropologists of education for decades to come.

To further celebrate the work of CAE members, the CAE Board of Directors approved two new awards at its board meeting held during the AAA Meeting. One is the new CAE Outstanding Book Award. This award is for books that have made a significant contribution to the anthropology of education within the two years prior to the award. The other is an annual $300 travel award that is a result of a collaboration between the CAE and the StudiesinEducationalEthnography (SEE) Emerald Publishing book series. The award will be given to a scholar whose paper has been accepted for presentation at the Annual Meeting. If the awardee is a junior scholar she or he will be paired with a senior scholar or a member of the SEE Editorial Advisory Board for feedback and publication guidance.

There were many other CAE events at the 2017 Annual Meeting in addition to those already mentioned. Looking ahead to the coming year, CAE contributing editors to Anthropology News Cathy Amanti and Patricia D. López, hope to keep the dialogue around our mission and our identity moving forward through our section news column. We invite articles, photo essays, videos, cartoons, and other forms of creative writing that address the CAE’s 2018 theme “Living the CAE mission.” Articles can be up to 1,400 words in length. Please send us your ideas (see contact information below). Let us know if your submission will be in a digital format so that we can ensure it is compatible with the Anthropology News website.

In closing, we would like to take this opportunity to thank our 2017 columnists Kari Chew, Vanessa Anthony-Stevens, Ted Hamann, the Kharij Collective, Nelson Flores, Jonathan Rosa, and KiMi Wilson. The article by Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa, “Political Correctness Is Not the Problem, Systemic Racism Is,” was one of the most-read Anthropology News section news articles in 2017. Going forward we hope to continue using this platform to connect with others, share the work of the CAE, and advance our mission of promoting “racial and social justice in all settings where learning takes place.”

Cathy Amanti is clinical assistant professor in the Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Education at Georgia State University and is a CAE board member.

Patricia D. López is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at San José State University and CAE board member. @xicanasoul

Over the past decade, social scientists have methodically documented the profound effects of unprecedented charter school growth in urban districts in the United States: stratification. An exodus of students from traditional neighborhood schools to charter schools has driven this growth, creating troubling numbers of vacant seats as well as concentrating larger percentages of high-need populations like Special Education Students and English Language Learners in the public school system.

In cities like Philadelphia, the maintenance of two parallel educational systems—one charter, the other district—has also strained budgets and contributed to fiscal crises that have further divested traditional district schools of critical resources. How are youth, teachers, and staff in neighborhood schools responding to these conditions and the moral associations that the “neighborhood school” has come to invoke within an expanding educational marketplace? What does it mean to attend and or work in a traditional neighborhood school in the midst of the dramatic restructuring of urban public education?

Given the established connections between academic achievement and student perceptions of school environments, my research builds on both anthropologies of education and policy by forcing policymakers and academics to critically engage questions around market-oriented school reforms and their implications for the institutional health of traditional schools as well as students’ social and academic engagement (Anyon 1980; Erickson 1987; Mehan 2000).

Using frameworks developed in anthropological studies of social stigma and policy, I explore how the power of market stratification has influenced the intensification of institutional stigmas around the traditional neighborhood school. Drawing on ethnographic data collected over a period of four years from a neighborhood school in Philadelphia, Johnson High, I analyze youth perspectives on the impact of charter schools on their lives. What are their aspirations and life chances given their status as students in a non-selective neighborhood school? I ultimately interrogate how notions of race, educational quality, and (lack of) school choice, impact this neighborhood school community’s sense of worth.

Stratification and the hierarchy of urban schools

I mean, I really wanted to go to charter school but they’re like hard to get into. I mean, I don’t mind it here that much. Like you have the magnet schools and Catholic schools up here [gestures with hands high], and charters are here [lowers hands down] and then there’s the neighborhood school here at the bottom of the barrel [lowers hands further]. I mean, Johnson High isn’t as bad as [other neighborhood high school], not as dangerous, but it’s still down here because it’s a neighborhood school. And then with all of the budget cuts, it sucks even more. (James, sophomore)

We’ve become holding ponds for the kids nobody wants. They create the conditions for us to fail and then punish us when it happens. They devalue the work we do with the toughest kids, the ones that are hardest to get to, the ones that nobody is looking out for. (Mr. Keo, principal)

Delineating the rungs of school quality in Philadelphia, James placed his Johnson High at “the bottom of the barrel.” In turn, he echoed Mr. Keo’s sentiments, describing a shared perception that neighborhood schools are bad because “bad kids” go to them. In a system where charter schools have further injected choice into the marketplace of urban school options, James points out that those at “the bottom” do not enjoy that same choice. When I asked James whether he had plans to apply to college, he indicated that he probably would not. In spite of his placement in a college preparation cohort, he explained, “I mean, I go to Johnson High right? Didn’t I just explain that to you? Like, I’m not that smart. I’m tryin’ to just find a job now down at Modell’s so that I can pay for my shoes and stuff. With mom not working, I gotta pay for my own stuff.”

Negotiating media stereotypes

The media makes you feel worthless, like you’re a bad kid who goes to a bad school. They play on the worst stereotypes about inner-city kids. (Shannon, senior)

We ain’t got no books up in here. You see a book from so many years ago, all scribbled in and you’re like, we ain’t shit. They ain’t even buyin’ us books up in here. I don’t know how that happened. How did they stop carin’ about us? They say that the district is broke. Where did all of the money go? We used to have so many more kids but they know the district ain’t got nothin’ so they leave. They leave for the charter schools. (Jacob, senior)

Johnson students harbored conflicting feelings like Jacob. They struggled to allocate blame for population loss and the school’s reputation as “terrible.” Such austerity made them feel like they “ain’t shit.” However, media portrayals of violent incidents at the school intensified the shame they felt when neighbors, many of whom had opted to send their children to charters, often chastised them for remaining at Johnson.

An ethnographic window into the double-bind of school choice

The school choice movement has contributed to real material changes for neighborhood schools, draining them of students and resources and leaving high need populations and educators scrambling to stay afloat amidst the rising tide of institutional uncertainty. I follow Brene Brown (2006) in her conceptualization of stigma as an “unwanted identity” that inherently produces feelings of intense shame. Her notion of the “double-bind” helps us think through the stigma and accompanying shame of attending a neighborhood high school in an age of educational choice. Brown defines the double-bind as the “trapped” feeling that emerges when expectations heighten and choices narrow, leaving individuals feeling powerless to change their situation.

As urban school systems become more stratified, the institutional stigma around neighborhood schools heightens. Yet my participants demonstrate that the choice for them to attend schools outside of their neighborhoods is severely constrained by costs, barriers to application, and limited seats. Caught in the double-bind between expectation and narrowed options, the shame of having the “unwanted identity” as a neighborhood school student accompanies being “left behind” in increasingly underfunded neighborhood schools. This research not only questions how market stratification impacts access to quality public education but also how school choice shapes students’ attachment and belief in their schools as places of hope and promise as the term “neighborhood school” becomes increasingly deployed as a slur.

]]>http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/15/graduate-student-paper-prize-winner/feed/0MPAAC, Sexual Harassment, and Immigrationhttp://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/14/mpaac-sexual-harassment-and-immigration/
http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/14/mpaac-sexual-harassment-and-immigration/#commentsWed, 14 Feb 2018 15:54:56 +0000http://www.anthropology-news.org/?p=79478[pquote] MPAAC embodies the spirit of the previously distinct committees but now functions as a single entity to generate more coordinated and focused efforts vis-à-vis both the discipline of anthropology and anthropologists’ engagement with the world-at-large. [/pquote]

Synergy. Creativity. Agility. Communication. Commitment.

These are some of the keywords that characterize the rollout of MPAAC, the Members’ Programmatic Advisory and Advocacy Committee. Composed of 23 members, half of who are elected by the membership and half presidentially appointed, the new MPAAC structure plays an important role in AAA governance. It is also a vital new force for members’ engagement with one another and the public. Formally initiated after the 2017 Annual Meeting, MPAAC’s primary responsibility is communicating with members and the Executive Board (EB) to help coordinate the Association’s work in eight priority areas: ethics; human rights; labor and workforce; public policy; racialized minorities; gender equity; practicing, public and applied sector; and internationalization.

MPAAC embodies the spirit of the previously distinct committees but now functions as a single entity to generate more coordinated and focused efforts vis-à-vis both the discipline of anthropology and anthropologists’ engagement with the world-at-large. For the first quarter of 2018 we are engaged in several important tasks that reflect MPAAC’s charge and its synergistic, collaborative spirit. More specifically, MPAAC’s leadership structure entails a triad of chairs that together capture the inward-facing, or association-specific, dimensions of MPAAC’s work, and the outward-facing, or publicly engaged, aspects of our discipline. In practice, this means the membership, including sections, can collaborate with MPAAC on everything from organizing panels and events at the Annual Meetings to participating in working groups to produce concrete outcomes aligned with the Association’s Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP). Similarly, MPAAC can respond to pressing issues that arise beyond the discipline to help the Association respond effectively or engage proactively.

So what is MPAAC actually doing right now? For the first quarter of 2018 we are engaged in several important tasks that reflect MPAAC’s charge and its synergistic, collaborative spirit. First, we are coordinating with several other bodies within AAA and the EB to undertake an analysis of existing statements and policies by sister societies regarding sexual harassment and assault. The result will be a recommendation to the EB from MPAAC regarding an official AAA position and process for addressing sexual harassment and assault in the discipline, in university and other workplace settings, in the field, and around the Annual Meeting.

Also during the first quarter, we are tackling the urgent issue of immigration reform in the United States and particularly the impacts of the Trump administration’s rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, protections. Recognizing that DACA affects our families, our communities, our institutions and workplaces, our colleagues and students, and the nation at large, MPAAC is developing a series of responses and actions rooted in our anthropological expertise and commitment to advocacy.

These two priority projects were identified as important beginnings for MPAAC for several reasons. First, they are timely and pressing. Second, the nature of both sexual harassment and DACA cut across the different priority areas represented in MPAAC, thus requiring collaboration across the different “seats,” from ethics, gender equity, and human rights to public policy, labor, and racialized minorities. Each project also embodies the inward and outward facing dimensions of MPAAC. And finally, these issues align with key priorities indicated in the Association’s Strategic Implementation Plan. MPAAC is aiming to organize several panels, roundtables, and/or workshops at the 2018 Annual Meeting that engage with these two priority projects as well. Members can expect to see regular reports and updates on these, and on future projects, in Anthropology News and on various platforms such as the AAA blog and social media.

It’s important for members to note that although we have adopted sexual harassment and DACA as two priority projects for early 2018, there are others that we plan to take up later in the year. These include following up on, and making actionable, the findings of the Working Group on Racialized Police Brutality and Extrajudicial Violence, as well as turning our attention to the AAA Statements on Ethics and on Human Rights. We also will not lose sight of the importance of the situation in Israel-Palestine, and we intend to continue developing a home for practicing and applied anthropologists. Clearly, MPAAC has much to keep us busy, and our aim is to do it effectively and transparently, as a coordinated team.

We encourage the membership to reach out to us. Learn about who we are by visiting the MPAAC committee page. Contact us with ideas and issues, whether about the discipline itself or developments that concern us as anthropologists. Plan to attend our public forum at the 2018 Annual Meeting and meet us personally. Consider running as an MPAAC committee member during election time and help us orient our work toward the present and future!

Tricia Redeker Hepner is associate professor of anthropology at the University of Tennessee Knoxville and MPAAC chair.

Has the racism underlying Trump’s candidacy and presidency ever been in doubt? He rehearsed racist stereotypes about Mexican immigrants during the Republican primaries, and then surrounded himself with advisors who helped him run on a white nationalist platform. Once in office, he launched a commission widely seen as a veiled attempt at minority voter suppression and appointed an attorney general whose record on race previously disqualified him for a position on the federal judiciary. When Trump planned to visit the opening of the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum last December, the NAACP urged him to skip the ceremony in light of his abhorrent record on civil rights.

There may be no American president since the days of Jim Crow who has done more to foster the ideals of white supremacy. One need only look at Trump’s record to draw that conclusion. But our national discourse on this topic often gets simplified to that singular question: Is he a “racist”?

[pquote]As long as the discourse doesn’t get bogged down in that singular question of whether or not he is a bigot, there is an opportunity to leverage the focus on his remarks to unmask the collective racism undergirding his policies.[/pquote]

Building upon Jane Hill’s (2008) work on the everyday language of white racism, I have examined a common discursive routine that underlies much of our talk about race and racism in US society: the hunting for racists language game (Hodges 2015, 2016a, 2016b). I borrow the metaphor of “hunting for racists” from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2013) who uses the phrase to describe how the common approach to race relations involves “the careful separation of good and bad, tolerant and intolerant Americans.” I adopt the notion of a language game from Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953) to capture how a word takes on different meanings depending upon the activity in which it is embedded. Within the hunting for racists language game, the concept of racismnarrows to simply mean individual bigotry or personal prejudice. Racism comes to be located solely in the minds of individuals who are positioned as societal outliers. These moves support the premise that racism is a thing of the past and elide from view the systemic and institutional racism that continues to structure US society.

Interestingly, the hunting for racists language game “minimizes racism” (Bonilla-Silva 2013), while ostensibly engaging in a type of anti-racist discourse that attempts to identify “racists.” However, by reducing racism to individual bigotry, the discourse shifts focus onto “individual psychological dispositions” (Bonilla-Silva 2013) or “individual beliefs and psychological states” (Hill 2008), and away from viewing racism as a system of power that requires everyday actions and institutionalized policies to remain in place.

In the case of Trump’s disparaging words about Haiti and African nations, it is easy to lose sight of the larger issues as everyone attempts to figure out whether he is psychologically stable and truly possesses the heart of a bigot. Or maybe not.

If there is something positive to be gleaned from his offensive words on this occasion, it is that they forced his supporters and critics alike to grapple with the racist implications of what it means to allow immigrants from Norway while seeking to deny immigrants from Haiti and African countries. Yes, reactions focused intensely on his “vulgar comments,” the label for the remarks used by media outlets like National Public Radio and the New York Times. But at the same time, we also saw how those words connected to his demand “to know whether Haitian immigrants could be left out of any deal” on DACA and to the racially-based immigration policy that Trump sought more generally. In other words, the obviously racist language, in this case, may have helped bring greater attention to his white supremacist policies.

Although the white supremacy implicit in those policies has been evident from the start, the racist underpinnings of the policies can be easily masked in statements like the one made by White House spokesperson Raj Shah in the wake of the incident. “Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” he said. Anodyne comments like these conveniently allow Trump allies (no matter how reluctant) to hide behind the veil of plausible deniability as they enable the racist system enacted and perpetuated by Trump administration stances and policies.

When the racism appears in visibly “vulgar” remarks, it forces reluctant Trump supporters to either begin to consider the policy implications or reach for vexed excuses. Tragically, Trump’s presidency seems to be breeding more of the latter, along with a greater acceptance of overt racism in many forms. But, if there is any silver lining to Trump’s racist diatribes, it may be in the opportunities they provide to expose the entrenched racism that undergirds his policies. That is, as long as the discourse doesn’t get bogged down in that singular question of whether or not he is a bigot, there is an opportunity to leverage the focus on his remarks to unmask the way “everyone in his administration…is participating in systemic racism,” as William J. Barber II, a member of the NAACP’s national board, told the Washington Post. “We’ve got to get beyond the antics and address the policy.” Perhaps Trump’s own words can help us do that.

Adam Hodges is a linguistic anthropologist with interests in political discourse. His books include The ‘War on Terror’ Narrative: Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality, and his articles have appeared in Discourse & Society, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Language & Communication, and Language in Society.

Anthropology lost a bright star in 2005, with the death of M. Estellie Smith. The Society for Economic Anthropology (SEA) will celebrate Smith’s intellectual contributions and commitment to learning with the new M. Estellie Smith Fund, thanks to the generosity of her husband and fellow anthropologist, Charles Bishop. The M. Estellie Smith Fund will finance a competitive dissertation fieldwork grant of $2,500, to be awarded annually to a PhD candidate pursuing economic anthropology research that promises to make significant theoretical or applied contributions to solve current world issues. This award includes $2,000 to contribute to research expenses, and $500 to facilitate travel to the SEA Spring Meetings to present research results. The first M. Estellie Smith Award will be awarded in 2018; proposal instructions and the deadline will be announced on the SEA webpage within the next few months.

M. Estellie Smith. Charles Bishop

Estellie Smith was a past president of SEA, and a regular participant at the SEA meetings. Society members remember Smith fondly as a productive scholar, an active and engaged participant, and a dedicated mentor to students and junior faculty. Among Smith’s trademarks were her insistence that her first name be pronounced correctly (emphasis on the first syllable, almost rhyming with Nestlé) and her frequently-used cigarette holder. Her obituary in the Albany Times Union (October 30, 2005) states that “speed, efficiency, independence, and frugality were key concepts that guided the way she approached life.” SEA members remember Smith as a mentor and recount stories of her providing them with undivided attention and useful, critical, feedback during important moments in their early careers.

Smith followed her intellectual curiosity through different subjects that she saw as unified with the four-field anthropology that she championed: she published in three of American anthropology’s four subfields. She began her research trajectory at Taos Pueblo in the 1960s, under the supervision of linguist George L. Trager. Her own Portuguese heritage led to a research agenda focused on the role of women in Portuguese immigrant communities in New England, resulting in key contributions in feminist anthropology and migration studies (e.g., 1980). Many Portuguese New Englanders are fishermen, leading Smith to contribute to maritime anthropology (e.g., 1977a). She also published key works on social evolution and change (e.g., 1982). While social and economic themes ran through much of her work, economic anthropology became her major focus in the latter part of her career (e.g., 2000). She edited or wrote eight books, including Governing at Taos Peublo (1969), Those Who Live by the Sea (1977), and Trade and Trade-offs: Using Resources, Making Choices, and Taking Risks (2000). Smith published over 70 articles, on topics as diverse as ethnomedicine among Sicilian immigrants in Buffalo (1972), to the social and technical differences between ocean-going vessels and their Great Lakes counterparts (1977b). In 1987 she became a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[pquote]The M. Estellie Smith Fund will finance a competitive dissertation fieldwork grant of $2,500, to be awarded annually to a PhD candidate pursuing economic anthropology research that promises to make significant theoretical or applied contributions to solve current world issues.[/pquote]The Society for Economic Anthropology is honored by, and grateful for, Charles Bishop’s generous gift establishing the M. Estellie Smith Award. This fund will make significant contributions to training future generations of economic anthropologists, who, through their research and teaching efforts, will make the world a better place.

SEA offers a total of four awards. The M. Estellie Smith Award specifically funds dissertation fieldwork. The Haplerin Award, in honor of Rhoda Halperin, specifically funds pre-dissertation research. The Schneider Student Paper prize, named after Harold Schneider, acknowledges outstanding undergraduate and graduate writing. These three awards are offered annually. The SEA Book Prize is awarded every three years to an outstanding economic anthropology monograph. Scholars interested in applying for these awards should seek further information at the SEA website.

Bram Tucker is associate professor of anthropology at the University of Georgia and president for the Society for Economic Anthropology.

]]>http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/12/going-native/feed/0Mike Youngbloodhttp://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/12/mike-youngblood/
http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/12/mike-youngblood/#commentsMon, 12 Feb 2018 17:14:49 +0000http://www.anthropology-news.org/?p=79442Mike Youngblood is a cultural anthropologist working at the intersection of anthropology and human-centered design. His work explores new ways to apply sociocultural theory and methods to tackle innovation challenges focused on social equity and environmental issues. This is Mike’s “Anthropological Moment,” a story that illustrates the power of ethnography to bring about a positive and practical social impact.

As anthropologists, we pride ourselves on exposing injustices and fighting for what is right. So, why have we not better organized as individuals, the AAA, and anthropology departments to right the wrong of overproducing PhDs in a rapidly shrinking job market where exploited adjuncts do half the teaching?

Dear Pride,

To be a bit Beastie about it, you’ve got to fight for your right to anthropologize.

The problem is well-defined. Our tragicomic tale of disenfranchisement, devaluation, mass overproduction, and industry destabilization has filled the pages of this venerable publication, Anthropology News, for decades. We are, as a field, poor, broken, powerless, and competing for terrible jobs.

The gatekeepers to resources gaslight us by asking, “Why should we use anthropology?” We take their question too seriously. Our department webpages, editorials, projects, and grants are filled with encomiums about broader impacts, the need to be “with the people,” and proclamations about the virtues of qualitative research. In the meantime, other disciplines embraced our methods and our theories and mapped them onto their own training programs, thereby filling the anthropological slot. So then what are we? How do we fit into the rest of the world that holds needed resources?

Instead of answering the question “Why is anthropology important?” anthropologists need to shift the frame to ask, “How is anthropology going to work in this situation, to fill this need, at this time?” Anthropologists can organize around the question of “how” to best serve a broader objective in any given scenario because the material, discursive, and institutional constraints are knowable, and therefore actionable.

This fight should be the work and the goal of social science policy. There is a well-defined place in the world for science policy, economic policy, and social [welfare] policy—all of which put the service of the discipline to the systematic redress of real-world challenges. Anthropological activism needs to be wedded to solutions, and taking the hard risks that come with mucking about in the space of politics. We can be critical and independent, and still be of service to goals greater than our own.

To get there, we need to know what we stand for; which principles are non-derogable. Is it open access to research? Early integration into national policy development? Better academic working conditions? Ivory tower independence?

Whatever the answers are, we know the old ways aren’t working. I stand with you in the fight. Fight on, Pride. Fight on.

AnthroVice

Rules for Mother-In-Law Relations

Can anyone provide any explanation or references on the widespread practice of mother-in-law avoidance in tribal societies?

Dear Avoidant,

The old structuralists considered the mother-in-law relationship to be one that was inherently morally dangerous and filled with instability. Mother-in-law avoidance was meant to be a way of maintaining respect, and avoiding danger. Some cultures have special words just for the relationships between in-laws, like the Yiddish concept of “machetunim”; while others have highly structured rules for engagement in the fraught mother-in-law relationship.

But perhaps we should recast the question, especially in light of the recent winter holiday season—a time when mothers-in-law abound in every corner of our cozy little hearths and homes. Either mother-in-law avoidance isn’t solely evident in tribal societies, or all societies are inherently tribal, because it’s everywhere in this society.

Consider these lovely chestnuts from the United States:

“Behind every successful man is a proud wife and a surprised mother-in-law.”
—Hubert Humphrey

“Conscience is a mother-in-law whose visit never ends.”
—H.L. Mencken

“I told my mother-in-law that my house was her house, and she said, ‘Get the hell off my property.’”
—Joan Rivers

Mothers-in-law are powerful, formidable keepers of the heart of the one you love. Mothers-in-law have valid social claims to most of your resources, including your children, home, and time. A few words from her can turn an otherwise competent man into a whiny five year old or turn a strong, capable woman into a tremulous preteen. Perhaps this is the reason why mother-in-law avoidance—and mother-in-law tributes—are such pervasive practices.

]]>http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/12/pride-and-mother-in-law-relations/feed/0Come Togetherhttp://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/12/come-together/
http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2018/02/12/come-together/#commentsMon, 12 Feb 2018 16:58:32 +0000http://www.anthropology-news.org/?p=79432At its core anthropology is about a simple idea—that the world is a better place if people understand one another. For some anthropologists that means basic research, because knowing more about people—their past, present, and prospects—is a worthy goal in itself. Others teach, helping students of all ages better understand the diverse ways of being human, and for others it means applying that knowledge in practical application. It’s the broadest of endeavors, encompassing scientific and humanistic approaches to people and their near kin, to how they communicate, come together, divide, develop, and find meaning. That variety is its greatest strength.

I’ve been thinking about that a lot as I start my term as president, because that’s why the American Anthropological Association matters. AAA uniquely brings together this disparate discipline within a common fold so that, despite all our differences, we can celebrate and cultivate what we share—our belief in what anthropology does, and in the value of the insights anthropology offers into the human career and the human condition. Those are the insights that let us speak with authority on issues we care deeply about, including social equity, justice, race, harassment, heritage, health, immigration, development, and climate change. Those are the insights that enable us to address challenges in higher education, research support, and precarity in employment.

So that’s our ongoing responsibility—to make AAA better at bringing our disparate discipline together to address issues and needs, and to further our purpose of helping people understand one another, advancing knowledge, and solving human problems.

How will we do it? Plans make gods laugh, but I hope we can make AAA better in four ways over the next couple of years:

First and foremost, I want us to improve our communication with you.

Second, I’d like us to increase the relevance of AAA to you in your daily life, and to all anthropologists everywhere in their daily lives.

Third, I want us to make AAA a more welcoming home for anthropologists regardless of context of practice or what kind of anthropology you do.

Fourth, we need to make anthropology’s insights more relevant to policymakers and more central to public discourse. That’s no small task in these latter days when social science is pilloried by politicians and public debate is polarized.

[pquote]AAA uniquely brings together this disparate discipline within a common fold so that, despite all our differences, we can celebrate and cultivate what we share—our belief in what anthropology does, and in the value of the insights anthropology offers into the human career and the human condition.[/pquote]The challenges confronting the discipline and our communities of practice have never been greater, and it’s important that all of us understand how AAA is addressing those myriad challenges and concerns. Our Long Range Plan (LRP) is always available on the AAA website—check it out, and see where your concerns fit within its framework. If they don’t, let me know, so the LRP better reflects the needs and interests of our members.

Few issues in the Long Range Plan are easily solved; most require long-term, consistent, coordinated, and concerted efforts. They’re identified in the LRP so that in the tumult and bustle of daily affairs we don’t lose sight of our central priorities. Like all big tasks, they’re best tackled one step at a time. So we annually update a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) listing what we’re going to do in the next 12–24 months to advance each of those priorities, along with when it’s supposed to be done, and who’s supposed to do it.

Some tasks are completed by AAA staff, which includes a mix of anthropologists (more than ever before, including AAA’s executive director) and professionals with specialized training in their respective areas. Others are accomplished by the hundreds of anthropologists who serve in governance, committee, task force, and editorial roles throughout the AAA and its 40 constituent professional and scholarly societies—folks like Jason De Leon who’s taking time from his Macarthur grant to serve as executive program chair for our upcoming annual meeting in San Jose, Leslie Aiello who stepped down as president of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and joined our Finance Committee to ensure we have the capacity to meet the challenges to come while also chairing our Committee on World Anthropologies, or Johnnetta Cole who recently stepped down as director of the National Museum of African Art, but continues to advise our “Anthropology Goes Back to School” project.

And that’s why I’m using the first-person plural: it’s our AAA. There is no “them,” only “us.” Whether we meet those challenges and accomplish the changes we want to see depends most of all on whether we as members remain engaged and work collectively to address what we feel matters most. Despite all our differences, far more unites us than divides us.